…well, so far, anyway. Some highlights from the 6th January House of Lords committee stage follow. Most of the discussion so far has been about OFCOM’s obligations. The ‘three strikes’ copyright infringement stuff hasn’t been discussed yet, but I’ve included a preview of the most interetsing amendments tabled so far in this area at the bottom of this post.

Amendments already discussed

A light-hearted one to start you off:

Baroness Howe of Idlicote, on why investment in mobile networks is a good idea:

“Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, made a very important point. I, too, live in one of the completely hopeless reception areas. Enough gigabytes need to be available so that the level is acceptable right across the country. I fear that we did not have enough gigabytes in the first place so that we could compete with countries such as Japan and so on. That is one of the problems with which we have to live.”

(6th Jan, Column 149)

Oh noes! We don’t have enough gigabytes!

Some enlightened talk – but full of bombast – from Lord Lucas on trust-busting (during a section about the universal service obligation on broadband providers). He is clearly a long-term BT critic:

“However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, pointed out, we are facing not a tide but a tsunami-the dam has broken. He outlined a world where there is the growth of apps, to be followed by a decent e-book, at last-I am dead certain that Apple will not produce anything other than that. This will create an enormous change, not only for this part of the Bill but certainly for Clauses 4 onwards. I declare an interest as someone who earns most of his money from selling copyright on the net.

It is wrong to see these things as a threat. They are an enormous opportunity. The way in which to harness an opportunity is not to live with the old monopolists and try to shore them up, doing cosy deals with the big beasts of the industry, but to encourage the underdogs and the people who are motivated to change.”

(6th Jan 2010, Column 159)

Perhaps not to positive on the copyright side, but at least with regard to broadband provision there’s some determination not to hand BT a chunk of change and not keep a tight reign on them. Anyway, Lucas’ amendment was withdrawn.

An attempt to usurp the special place of investment in public service broadcasting by Lord Howard of Rising (amendment 3, here):

“My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 4, 6, 7 and 31. These five amendments fall into a few different groups. Amendments 3 and 6 serve two purposes-first, to create a level playing field with respect to investment in media content, and, secondly, to highlight a further concern that this subsection may have on Ofcom’s ability to function properly. By removing the phrase “public service” from this duty, we are attempting to create a level playing field in the media sector.

We on this side of the Committee want to attract investment into UK content in general, rather than just public service content. Without this amendment, such a duty may put off potential investment into the UK media sector, because it would create a fear that Ofcom may intervene to the detriment of those not producing public service content. We do not believe that the state should choose what type of content non-public service broadcasters invest in. Consumers value choice above all else, and these amendments would ensure that this is protected.

(6th Jan 2010, Column 163-164)

Amendments still to be discussed

You can view a full list of amendments to be discussed in the Committee stage at the HoL site. From my (copyright policy) perspective, the most interesting are:

Amendment 33 (Lord Razzall; Lord Clement-Jones):

“Obligations on copyright holders

Copyright holders seeking to take action against subscribers for online copyright infringement must use the process set out in sections 124A to 124E of the Communications Act 2003 except in cases of actual or likely extreme prejudice.”

Amendment 34 (Lord Razzall; Lord Clement-Jones):

“Compliance with fundamental rights

In drafting or amending any code, laying any statutory instrument, or taking any other action under sections 124A to 124L of the Communications Act 2003 or under section 302A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Secretary of State must demonstrate before such action is implemented that he has considered whether such action—

(a)  is necessary and proportionate to the goal of protecting and enforcing copyright, and

(b)  that it appropriately balances the interest of rights holders and the interests of the public in due process, privacy, freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights guaranteed by inter alia the European Convention of Human Rights and the EC Charter of Rights.”

Amendment 56 and 57, on introducing a DMCA-style sworn statements to affirm that the accuser owns the copyright concerned and has collected the information legally:

“56 Page 6, line 24, at end insert “; and

(   )  includes a sworn statement by the person making the report that the information collected has been obtained in compliance with all relevant laws, including data protection and privacy laws, and by persons entitled to gather such information”

57 Page 6, line 24, at end insert “; and

(   )  includes a sworn statement and evidence that the person making the report owns the requisite copyright” “

I doubt those last ones will survive the Committee stage.

There are also a number of amendments clarifying the accusing tone of the language, from “infringement” to “infringement allegation”. These can be found throughout the tabled amendments.

I couldn’t let the topic of Peter Mandelson’s new Digital Economy Bill go un-blogged, so rather than subject you to my incoherent ramblings, I thought I’d point legally-minded readers in the direction of Pangloss’s excellent analysis of the Bill as it stands.

The Bill has just been presented for its first reading, and despite the hysterics and some inaccurate reporting from the usual folk, there really is a lot to be concerned here about in terms of copyright policy and civil liberties. The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to make amendments to copyright law by Statutory Instrument, would mandate ISPs to notify (and possibly later disconnect) customers based on mere accusations of copyright infringement on their account, and a few other ill-thought-out measures.

I will be phoning my MP in the next few days to ensure that he votes the Bill down when it is presented in the Commons.

Those wishing to read more of the context of the Bill’s introduction can read Ars Technica’s background piece. You can read the Bill itself, as presented to the Lords, here.

…And on the subject of devolution vs. independence, what a political own-goal by the UK government:

The Faslane naval base on the Clyde is to become home to the UK’s entire nuclear-powered submarine fleet, the BBC understands.

An announcement on the future of the UK’s naval submarines is expected to be made in the House of Commons later.
It is understood that Trafalgar class submarines, currently based in Plymouth, will join the existing Vanguard fleet based at Faslane.
more

It’s a total gift to the SNP, who campaign against nuclear weapons being held in Scotland (and use planning powers to block the construction of new nuclear power stations).

This will come back to haunt Labour.

I don’t have anything particularly noteworthy to say about it, but I wanted to mark the fact that ten years ago, Scotland voted in the first ever election in the newly-reformed Scottish Parliament. I was too young to vote in the first election, but I now take a reasonably keen interest in Scottish Parliament politics.

Overall, I view devolution as a success, and I think that the political process has both encouraged and reflected the diverging political environment between Scotland and the UK as a whole. For me, it has meant a more open, honest political process, some big public health wins (such as the public smoking ban), and most importantly, a greater sense of confidence in Scotland. It has also had its faltering, embarrassing moments, and periods of total farce.

I am curious about further powers, something that almost everyone agrees the Parliament needs.

A referendum on independence for Scotland is planned for next autumn. The Scottish National Party presented the referendum bill against unfavourable parliamentary arithmetic in March (and failed), but it’s likely to re-introduce it at some point. One would hope that the effect of the opposition to the bill would be to add additional options (a three-way poll, including a ‘devolution max’ option as well as independence and the status quo) rather than to prevent the whole enterprise altogether.

Consider this an open thread. What does devolution mean to you? Would independence give Scotland the clout it needs? Is ‘devolution max’ or some kind of more entrenched federalism the way to go?

Statement A: The UK government are not planning to build a massive surveillance network to capture the traffic data of all internet users:

“GCHQ is not developing technology to enable the monitoring of all internet use and phone calls in Britain, or to target everyone in the UK,” the statement said. “Similarly, GCHQ has no ambitions, expectations or plans for a database or databases to store centrally all communications data in Britain.”

Statement A, revised: The UK government are not planning to build a massive surveillance network to capture the traffic data of all internet users.

Just not all of them simultaneously.

Or so they tell us. I feel so reassured :S